Is it worth it for a fan, drawn to the series by Fallout 3, to buy them?

you can get a nice multi-pack in Amazon.com for under $10.00 (used)
but somehow, don't think you'll be amused by the archaic graphics and only 3rd person view

It depends. What do you like about Falout 3? The gameplay? The setting? If you like the first person real time gameplay then no. The first two games are isometric and have turn based combat, and so they may feel tedious to you. If you like Fallout 3 because of the setting then yes it's worth playing them.

If you're a fan of RPGs and good stories and you can look past the dated graphics and lack of action elements, then 100% absolutely. If you'll be disappointed in a game that doesn't have "teh hawt next-gen grafx" and FPS action gameplay, then you won't like them.

I can deal with lower graphics, but turn based ..

I just really want the DLC's now ..
WHY CANT THEY BE ON PS3!?

Hopefully Bethesda reads these forums..
I see tons of fans wanting DLC on PS3.

For anyone that is still interested, Good Old Games is also selling it, at the unbeatable price of 5 bucks (and some change) a pop.
gog.com

You're welcome.

Fallout 1 and 2 are great games. But give them some time (and tolerance for the older graphics). The Fallout series was different back then. Do not expect it to be like Fallout 3. It's much different...much more complex...much better.

I'd give you a better spiel but I'm tired of all these threads. The turn-based combat isn't bad, until you kill a Citizen somewhere and have to spend 5 minutes watching every guard on the map run over to your position.

Depends on if you want to play 2 of the best cRPG's ever made. Your loss if you don't.

yeah there good game the turn based combat can be irritating as read above but it's worth it.

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/fallout

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/fallout_2

I highly recommend them both.

i just came here to start a new thread, but this will do nicely.
recently, about a month or so ago, i started a thread saying that fallout 3 was the best game ever made.
i got flamed. bad. hahaha.
afterwards, i decided to pick up fallout 1, 2 and tactics (one disc) for my computer.
my first REAL PC gaming experience!
(i dabbled a little in diablo 1 and 2 but never finished them)

as it now stands...
fallout 3 > 1 > 2

i LOVED fallout 1. i'm very glad i played it all the way through. the boss, if you make it that far, is a total mind BEEP.
fallout 2 was so-so. i did alot, but couldn't finish it. i got very bored. every town seems exactly the same.
nothing fresh. nothing new. nothing at all like the first one.

with that said, i still love fallout 3 more than any other game i've played.
and i can appreciate it that much more, having the priors under my belt. what a great story.
i will say though, that i wish fallout 3 had some of 1's attitude.
fallout 1 seems darker. much darker. i loved that.

but there you go, dude. if you love F3's story, at least give the whole series a chance.
worth the few bucks. definately.

Without commenting on your love of Fallout 3, I'll address your comments about Fallout 2.


First, all I have to say is "No."


Ok, now I'll expound on the statement: Fallout 2 misses the target in many areas (including tone, debatable pop-culture references and usage of humor) but what it does NOT miss the mark on is it's depth in quests, choices, towns, characters and the sheer amount of what you can do. I guarantee you just didn't spend enough time with it. Remember, it's much, much, much larger in scope than Fallout 1 so it takes twice, maybe three times the patience in each area to find EVERYTHING there is to do...and even when/if you do, you're still faced with a multitude of choices in how you choose to solve each situation, and nearly all of them will affect what your character is faced with throughout the rest of the game.

Now I return to your comments on Fallouts 2 & 3: No.

;)

okay, i'll probably get back to it one day when my wife hogs the 360.
honestly though, it was really boring! like i said, i didn't finish it, but i found alot!
can you really say 2 is better than 1?
i enjoyed 1 from the git go, and after 10-15 hours 2 is just bland.
i don't care about the characters, and i don't care about the story!
it's just bland. i don't care how big it is. after becoming a member of vault city it all went downhill.

id just say different, theyre two diferent games, i play both

Turn-based combat in Fallout originals is not that slow. Unless you have terribly short patience, it shouldn't be a problem.

Seriously thinking of getting these.
Thanks!

No, and I wasn't. They're both different and neither's really better in my mind but if I had to I'd vote for 1 over 2. What I was saying is that it's more complex. That you found it boring is strange to me considering you loved the first game. Different strokes I guess. :shrug: Personally I think Fallout 1 is the only "true" Fallout game out there. Fallout 2 comes closest but would be better if it left all the "winking" out of it. Fallout 3 is a totally different game with Fallout wrapping. Still good, but a real big "Meh" from this old Fallout fan.

I didn't care much for Fallout 2. Some reasons:

-The tribal crap. The Vault Dweller was highly experienced in combat, firearms, science, and even diplomacy by the end of Fallout 1. The combined efforts of him and other members of Vault-13 shouldn't have led to a freaky voodoo hippie village.

-The lack of retro-futurism. I feel even Fallout 3 was better in its 1950s ambience than Fallout 2. Fallout 2 didn't even feel like a post-nuclear apocalypse. Unfortunately civilization on the West Coast rebuilt itself so much it almost feels like a generic Western or other "Lawless Wasteland" movie.

-Too many boring villages - Modoc, Klamath, Broken Hills, they all felt the same to me.

-The drugs and prostitution. Again, just silly. I'm not completely against them, but Fallout 2 blew them way out of proportion.

-Ugly talking heads. Fallout 1's talking heads were sixier. ^_^

-Less complex dialog? Both FO1 and 2 had some remarkably complex dialog trees, but quite often I did not find as many options for convincing NPCs in Fallout 2 as I did in Fallout 1. In Fallout 2 it was usually "Affirmative", "Blatantly Obvious Declinement That Will Lead To You Being Attacked", "Maybe Later", and "Hang On, I Have More Questions". The only bit of Fallout 2 dialog that seemed even remotely similar to Fallout 1's in terms of complexity was all the arguing you could do with Lynette. Boy it was fun to annoy her.

The only things I really liked about Fallout 2 were The Enclave, the continuation of the story of Vault-13 and Vault-15 (though I still don't know how raiders rebuilt that place, especially excavating all those rockslides from FO1), and the increased amount of quests.

I have not played Fallout 3 but what I've seen looks good. So far I have to say:

Fallout 1 > Fallout 3 > Fallout 2

Yes, I have played the games in order starting with FO1.